The Cecil Whig. [volume] (Elkton, Md.) 1841-current, 1887-03-05
A LATE DECISION.
Grover & Baker Sewing Machine Company
vs.. william +. Radcliffe Garnishee OF
james Benge ana John Benge.

vs.. william T. Radcliffe Garnishee OF
james Benge ana John Benge.
Court of Appeals of Maryland January
term 1887. Albert Constable and VIM.
/. Warburton attorneys for appellants,
James r. Mccullough and Henry NJ
Mccullough, attorneys Tor appellees.
This case was first tried IN the Circuit
Court for Cecil county at September term
1854 and decided in favor of the defend
ants. The plaintiff appealed and the
Judgment of the Circuit Court was re-
versed by the Court of Appeals and the
case sent back for a new trial, which took
place in February 1850, when the verdict
and judgment were again for the defend
ants. The plaintiff again appealed, and
at the present. January term 81 the Court
oi Appeals TIM Judgment uI the Circuit
Court IN favor OF the defendants has been
affirmed.
At the second trial III the Court of AID
peals the qu ->tlons pr scented Related tx
clusvely to the validity of a Judgment
entered upon the records of the Court of
Common Pleas of Chester county Penn |
sylvaula, upon certified copy OF when
"a SUIT 10y attachment was brought III the |
Circuit Court aud certain lands III CecI! |
county formerly belonging to said John |
Benge were levied upon. John Benge |
when he Was the owner Ut this property |
became the surety oi his son James Beuge |
10y virtue OF a bond signed by them uoJn, |
III the penal sum OF $1,000 conditioned |
Tor tie faithful performance OF certain |
duties by the latter as agent of the plain
TIL III accounting Tor certain sewing ma !
chimes and other property placed Ill his |
hands. The bond also contained a war |
rant of attorney authorizing any attorney |
of IA court OF record III the State OF New |
York OF Ill any other state to confess !
Judgment against said James Benge and |
John Benge for said sum of $4,000. James !
Beuge at the time Was a resident of Ches-
ter county. Pennsylvania, and Jno Bcnge |
a resident of Cecil county, Md. Inc
bond was dated 10th of March, 1872 Ga
the Sd of January 1874, as appears uy the
record the parliamentary of Chester county
entered Judgment on this bond against
James Beuge and John Beuge for 50 600,
and upon IA copy of this judgment TINS
suit was brought. No attorney of record
entered any appearance for the defendants
in the Court OF Common Pleas of Chester
equity.
The case in the Circuit Court was de-
cided i'll favor of the defendants, because
the judges were OF the opinion that the
Peunsy lvania statute cited in evidence by
the plaintiffs counsel did not give au
tnority to the prothonotary To enter the
ju igment. The Court of Appeas also
say I'VE are strongly inclined To the opin-
ion that the Penusy lsana counts would
hold, i'll a case between citizens of Penn
sylvania that the present Case does not
come within the perview OF that statute"
But however this may be, says J ldge
Miller who delivered the opinion. and
without stopping to inquire how iudg
ment on such a bond SO as to be Ell, ctiye
tor execution can be rendered, there is
fundamental and fatal objection to the
validity OF this Judgment AS against the
defendant, John Beuge. He was a cti
zen and resident of Maryland, both when
the bond was executed and when the
judgment was entered, aud it is land al
legged to be his, located in Maryland,
which is sought, by this attachment, to
be condemned tor the satisfaction of this
Jude ment. He was never served with
process, never appeared in person or By
attorney, and never had any notice or
knowledge of the Judgment until part
of his land which lay III PENNSYLVANIA
was sold under the writs of il fl and
rendi in 1915. By the terms of his bond
he authorized ANY attorney of any Court
of Record III the state of New York, or
any other state to cOHttsS Judgment
ag ,inst him Tor The said sum of $780,"
and he has the right to require that
Judgment rendered against him IN the
court of another state shall be rendered
i'll strict pursuance of this authority. lie
did not authorize or consent that IA judg-
ment should be entered against him py
the parliamentary or clerk under a special
law 10 that effect. of any state, aud when
such Judgment is produced against him,
his answer to it. in hoec tederr non reAi,
is complete and conclusive. The qucs
ZION then comes to this, is a judgment
tn personam upon an oblIg alton for the
pay ment OF money rendered by a court
and under the laws of one state valid As
against citizen of another state who
had never been served with process, had
never appeared to the suit in person OF
by attorney nor had any other knowl
edge OF notice of 1t, and can such a ludg
meut be enforced against the property OF
such defendant located in the state OF
his residence? We think it is now clearly
settled that such judgment is utterly
void because the court rendering it had
acquired no Jurisdiction over the person
OF the defendant, and that this objection
to it may be set up, either in a case where
an action is brought upon the Judgment
itself. or where, as here, it is made the
foundation of AN attachment against the {
property of the defendant situated in the I
state of his residence 80 Md, 30.
Weaver VS. Boggs; % L. STA, Pennayer
VS.. Neff; Gill 429, Bank of the United
States VS.. Merchants Bank of Baltimore.
Is Wallace, 457, Thompson VS. Whitman
Such being our views of the case, it is
clear the appellant has suffered no injury
by the instruction to the jury to fluid a
verdict for the defendant, even though
the court may have assigned wrong
reason therefor.
We shall therefore affirm the judgment
considering the motion to dis {
miss the appeal